Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rend - AP blows, it's always effective or never effective, the problem with rend from the 2nd ed days was it was tied to str, fantasy decoupled them a while ago and AoS's current implementation of rend is wonderful.

Wound profiles for MCs and vehicles - AoS gives vehicles and MCs a ton of wounds and armor saves, it balances that by making their performance degrades as they take wounds, which is a wonderful implementation of what the vehicle damage table was supposed to do but never managed to do in its five editions.

One save per hit - The saves in AoS include modifiers for the opponents rend and the models cover (and/or buffs), it's very rare that anything gets an additional save. This puts a cap on how tough a model can be per wound. This encourages people to use cover regardless of their armor rather than stand out in the open with their wang flapping in the breeze.

Things I do not want

Set hit/wound values - I like comparing str to toughness, it allows for a range of weapons and target types. Just having a static roll to wound (eg 3+) means lasguns work just as well against tanks as they do against orks. To Hit should be based on the unit and not weapon, though I'm not opposed to weapons providing modifiers.

Then there is the collection of what were they thinking rules, which don't need explanation because they are obviously awful:

Shooting while locked in melee (sword fighting with one hand and using an LMG in the other)
Rolling for turns (first guy to get two in a row wins)
Every piece of terrain is magic and has special rules (this is the deadly shrub, because it eats people)

As above, there are a few things that 40K could incorporate from AoS to improve the game.

1) Paying for formations. Formations are what has broken this game, formations and decurion formations giving massive buffs for free. Paying for formations could only be a good thing.

2) Movement values. Different troops should move different speeds. A hormagaunt could be movement 8 while a Guardsmen could be 4, Banshees could be 7 while Astates could be 6, A Trygon could be 8 while a Great Unclean One would be 5. It just makes more sense.

3) Rend Values. Power swords cut through power armour like butter but are no better then a choppa against artificer armour? Makes no sense. This redesign would require re-balancing of some elite units, leading to

4) more Multiple wound elites, all terminators should have 2 wounds to differentiate them from normal Marines.

5) CC weapons doing multiple damage. A Carnifex only has like 3 or 4 attacks, that hit on 4's, and only kill 2 models? I want a Carnifex charge to feel like a scythe through a unit, not a glorified thunderhammer, large models with big weapons should have the capacity to kill multiple models in one swing.

6) melee weapon range. Adds a bit more tactics into which weapons are better and how to posistion models. A custode Spear should have a longer range then a bayonet.

7) Set Command Traits. Better than the warlord traits of today, The warlord having a set synergestic warlord trait to his unit type (A chaos raptor lord has a different trait to a foot lord) helps build more themed lists.

NOTHING.

I'd be happy with the reduction in necessary books to play the game, but really that's about it. There is really no reason they can't just do war scrolls now anyway. They'd be a bit more cluttered than the typical AoS scroll but it could work.

I can't think of anything worse to port over than the initiative system from AoS though. It's... Not a good rule in a game where a player gets to use their entire army when it's their turn. It would make more sense in a game like Lotr where initiative just means you get to act first in a given phase with alternating activations. It would be a disaster in 40k, and it's not good in AoS either. Please no.

dosiere wrote:
I'd be happy with the reduction in necessary books to play the game, but really that's about it. There is really no reason they can't just do war scrolls now anyway. They'd be a bit more cluttered than the typical AoS scroll but it could work.

I can't think of anything worse to port over than the initiative system from AoS though. It's... Not a good rule in a game where a player gets to use their entire army when it's their turn. It would make more sense in a game like Lotr where initiative just means you get to act first in a given phase with alternating activations. It would be a disaster in 40k, and it's not good in AoS either. Please no.

QFT, I have no idea how people can even begin to entertain that floating init would be anything but a unmitigated disaster if ported to 40k. I also have to lug around the following books depending on my lists.

IA 13 (this one sucks as its a huge thick book).
Codex CSM
Traitor Legions.
Traitors Hate if I want to run my renegade knights.
Base Rule Book (not the mini book but the crap one).
Codex CD

Hell my books are more of a burden than my actual army.

alex0911 wrote:
NOTHING.

Warhammer 40k can only wish it does some of the stuff AoS does.

tneva82 wrote:
Cost for formations. Pretty much that's it.

Yeah everything should have a point cost. Its kinda sad that 40k doesn't have this currently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
As above, there are a few things that 40K could incorporate from AoS to improve the game.


4) more Multiple wound elites, all terminators should have 2 wounds to differentiate them from normal Marines.

Please no :\

All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .

Pr3Mu5 wrote:The Floating Initiative format would ruin 40k in my opinion.
Can you imagine 2 back to back turns of Tau shooting?
Or even anyone good/average in the shooting phase vs chaos demons or orks?

Funny Lord of the Rings rules does this beautifully without any problems. So while this is not Age of Sigmar, I would take the "floating initiative" from Age of Sigmar and add the LotR Priority to it.

Daston wrote:Nothing, I honestly can't think of 1 thing AoS improved on.

Maybe unit cards....they were kinda useful for the time we tried it.

What free data slates you don't want?

Asmodai wrote:Degrading Vehicle/MC Rules

It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.

Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.

Totally forgot about degrading stats as wounds are taken. Would love that. Also your variable weapon damage suggestion is good as well.

Brutus_Apex wrote:AoS is an abysmally bad system. Compete garbage through and through

The random initiative rule that it has is possibly the worst thing i've ever seen. Thats all we need is more fething randomness in this game.

Can you possibly fathom an army like Tau or Eldar getting two turns of shooting in a row? Think about that for a second.

Characters not being able to join units is incredibly stupid and immersion breaking.

The Magic system is so simple it requires no thought, attention or dice management. The might as well just remove it all together and make the spells automatically cast. Not that I'm defending the 40K psychic phase. That thing is fething terrible too. They need to revamp the whole thing.

The ONLY thing I might want to see is monstrous creatures getting worse as they take wounds. But again that requires more note taking which might slow the game down unnecessarily.

Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.

alex0911 wrote:NOTHING.

What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?

The Magic system is so simple it requires no thought, attention or dice management. The might as well just remove it all together and make the spells automatically cast. Not that I'm defending the 40K psychic phase. That thing is fething terrible too. They need to revamp the whole thing.

This one's funny because this is how it used to work for 40k, you rolled a leadership check back in 5th edition and nobody complained then.

 oldzoggy wrote:

Please no :\

All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .

In the world of D6 randomizers there are only two ways to make things tougher, add wounds or add layers of defenses. We've had five editions of adding layers of defenses, and that has lead to D weapons, invis, 3+ invuls, rerollable saves, shields that stop D weapons, FNP/RP, Grav weapons, stomp, etc literally all of the problems with the current balance scheme can be laid at the feet of that one very poor design decision. Game balance has drunkenly swayed between "Need to make this tougher" and "Oh crap made it too tough need to add a way to kill it" for years now. and with the Tau'anar we are entering the endgame for D-Weapons. One save, multiple wounds, keep the game running at full steam.

i Like how in AoS Monsters and vehicles( for the few that exists), is balanced.

They both get worse at what they do depending on their remaining Wounds, rather then a random role for One and...Nothing for the other.

Keep it civil peeps....

I also think multi-wound hits need to make a comeback, now its mentioned - and I would love to see damage-degrading stats for MC, GC, Vehicles and Super-heavies.

It might take some getting used to at first, but I've found it infinitely preferable to the current 40k 'and until I'm d.e.d., I'm at full efficiency LOL'.

Rending I'd love to see back (as in, negatives to armour), but with the plethora of weapons in 40k, I think it'd quickly become very, very messy to keep track of what has what etc.

As for multiple books?

Please check out the AoS App. You don't have to ever play the game, or spend anything, but do have a play.

In short, it's flawed, but remains damned useful. See, all the Warscrolls are available for free download. Once downloaded, you can tap it to add it to 'My Battle'. Likewise if you've bought any premium content (either the book via the app, or specific formations and what not). One tap, added to the battle.

This leaves you with all the essential rules on one app page. Handy, eh?

But I did say it's flawed. For me, these are more irritants, for others, possibly deal breakers. And here they are.

1. There's currently no way to log ownership of a physical book on the app. If I want the premium content, I'd have to buy it in the app. Booooo!

2. The 'My Battle' needs some work. You can only add a single example of a Warscroll. So if you've got say, 3 units of Orruk 'Ardboyz, one 10 strong, one 15 strong, the other 20 strong, there's just that one very basic Warscroll for them. Definite room for improvement.

There may be other issues which irritate other games, but those are my pics. Thankfully they're resolvable, and not inherent to the app. I've asked GW about some sort of code system, obtainable from stores, to unlock premium content when I buy the relevant physical book. They said they'd like to, and are looking into it, but aren't sure it's 100% possible. I know naff all about coding and that, so can only take their word for it.

My Battle? Well, it's basically just me adding a piece of paper with the exact composition - it'd still be nice to be able to app that though so it's all in one place

Now...apply that to 40k? Doesn't matter which Codex your stuff is in, it all appears on that one page, and only the rules you're using. In theory, that'd be ace.

I think a lot of people are letting their perceived bias of AOS creep in, having actually played it, it's really good (better than 40k). The 4 page rules are actually not bad, basic of course but that's why you have Battleplans so you aren't playing a straight kill game.

Rend I think would be really good, since there's also the way some things can ignore rend of certain amounts; so vehicles and monstrous creatures could, for instance, ignore Rend of up to -2 or something and be really nasty.

Damage varying by attack is a neat idea too, to better represent how killy something is.

AOS often has a few weapon options, so I think if 40k streamlined their options (there are way too many right now that overlap) it would still have variety as you could just pick what weapon you have, and use its relevant stats (some units have like 3-4 choices for melee and ranged, that really is not too far from 40k).

Points for formations, as said, is great and would definitely help kill some of the OP formations. It would probably need to have formations be balanced properly because some are not worth the points at all, and some are, but it's a start.

Heroes joining units is an iffy thing, but I think AOS handles it well enough with how they can buff units. You could always have some benefit to joining a unit (keep Look Out Sir?) added due to how far range is in 40k.

FOC I'm not sure of, I think in effect it gets ignored anyways with formations, so would it be that bad? It could be rudimentary like AOS has: Leaders, Battleline (Troops), Other , Behemoth (vehicles/MC/GMC?) which could get the same effect without the "fear" of Unbound.

In short there's a lot of great things AOS has that 40k could use, and a lot of the "nothing" comments seem to be out of sheer ignorance of AOS or thinking it's the same as it was when it launched.

Forgot about the degrading MC/vehicle rule, it's indeed pretty good.

I also like the movement stat, it's much easier than having to deal with many unit types, and additional rules like fleet or crusader. It could even be something like: you move your movement stat in inches, and you charge movement + D6.

The rend system works well, and would solve many things. But I'm afraid it would make 40K too similar to AoS. Lowering the number of low AP weapons would be much better imo.

 Grimgold wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

Please no :\

All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .

In the world of D6 randomizers there are only two ways to make things tougher, add wounds or add layers of defenses. We've had five editions of adding layers of defenses, and that has lead to D weapons, invis, 3+ invuls, rerollable saves, shields that stop D weapons, FNP/RP, Grav weapons, stomp, etc literally all of the problems with the current balance scheme can be laid at the feet of that one very poor design decision. Game balance has drunkenly swayed between "Need to make this tougher" and "Oh crap made it too tough need to add a way to kill it" for years now. and with the Tau'anar we are entering the endgame for D-Weapons. One save, multiple wounds, keep the game running at full steam.

I agree 100%.
More wounds, attacks or shots is better than more rerolls and saves.

A Generals Handbook equivalent so they can dump the codex model and have everything in one place and update all armies and points at the same time.

Davor wrote:

alex0911 wrote:NOTHING.

What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?

The internet told them they should hate something, so they hate it.

Grimgold wrote:
. . .

Things I do not want

Set hit/wound values - I like comparing str to toughness, it allows for a range of weapons and target types. Just having a static roll to wound (eg 3+) means lasguns work just as well against tanks as they do against orks. To Hit should be based on the unit and not weapon, though I'm not opposed to weapons providing modifiers.

I see this argument against set wound values a lot, and I don't think people realized that it isn't as limiting as people think. Take a look at the Seraphon Bastilodon's "Impervious Defense" rule. It ignores all rend values and completely ignores to wound on a 4+ (assuming it failed the 3+). A similar rule could be used for heavily-armored vehicles/monsters in 40k.

Say a Guardsman with a Lasgun has a profile of 1/4+/0/5+/1 (one shot, hit on 4+, no rend, wound on 5+, 1 damage for those who aren't familiar with AoS profiles). A Space Marine with a Meltgun has a profile of 1/3+/-2/3+/d6. Now say a Landraider (or Chaos Landraider) has the "Ceramite Plating" rule that states something along the lines of "ignores all rend values and ignores the first point of damage from every wound taken". In this scenario, no number of attacks from the Guardsman will ever damage the Landraider since even if the attack goes through and wounds, the first wound is ignored. The Space Marine, on the other hand, can and likely will penetrated the armor.

That would violate the one save per hit idea, remember adding additional rolls to protect from damage increases toughness in a multiplicative manner instead of in a linear manner. Also I think slides (the gaming term for taking X amount of damage off of every attack) is a slippery slope that will get us back to exactly where we are right now in a hurry. A three point slide would ignore your version of melta 50% of the time, then they have to add weapons that ignore X amount of slide, and then we are back to D-Weapons and grav spam. Str V toughness deals with the idea well enough.

I'm ok with Impervious defenses for things like like void hardened armor and terminators, but it should be used sparingly. Games are the most fun when there are massive casualties on both sides, which is why everyone hates fighting necrons.

 Asmodai wrote:
Degrading Vehicle/MC Rules

It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.

Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.

So long as it came with the lots more wounds of monstrous creatures that AOS has so that the things that kill them are the big heavy duty weapons rather than a lucky round of bolter fire
(I've lost a disturbing amount of monsters to a round of bolters..)

 Grimgold wrote:
That would violate the one save per hit idea, remember adding additional rolls to protect from damage increases toughness in a multiplicative manner instead of in a linear manner. Also I think slides (the gaming term for taking X amount of damage off of every attack) is a slippery slope that will get us back to exactly where we are right now in a hurry. A three point slide would ignore your version of melta 50% of the time, then they have to add weapons that ignore X amount of slide, and then we are back to D-Weapons and grav spam. Str V toughness deals with the idea well enough.

I'm ok with Impervious defenses for things like like void hardened armor and terminators, but it should be used sparingly. Games are the most fun when there are massive casualties on both sides, which is why everyone hates fighting necrons.

I was just giving an example of how a fixed to-wound could prevent certain weapons from hurting certain models. Personally, I don't like SvT because it's just one more table to have to reference even if it is a simple formula. Still better than the WS table, though.

What not to do

Honestly though, the only thing 40K could do with from AoS is the reduction of stats as wounds are taken for the big things.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I think you have to pay points for formations.

This. Kill the rest.

Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.

What did you say before? Who was talking about LotR? Again, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even most AoS players don't like the floating initiative system.

Wrong. hahahah

What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?

In my experience you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay for quality.

The internet told them they should hate something, so they hate it.

Or maybe we have played the game, and didn't like it because of how shallow the rules are.

This one's funny because this is how it used to work for 40k, you rolled a leadership check back in 5th edition and nobody complained then.

For the record, I complained about the old 40K iteration of Psychic powers as well. It felt tacked on and poorly thought through. But back then I was too busy playing Fantasy. So...

I, personally love the rolling off for initiative every turn. I'm the only one at my lgs that does, and the only time it really mattered lost me a game, but I love it.

Likewise I love the terrain rules. We tell tales about the deadly fence and the haunted sign post.

But nobody here plays by those rules, usually.

On the question of initiative there is that other thing AoS does differently from 40k: the way it handles assaults... I honestly prefer initiative values on units to this. AoS can keep that.

I like that large monsters lose functionality as they get hurt, but in AoS I always feel like they lose too much punch too early. AoS is more melee oriented than 40k but because of the way it's rules work projectile oriented units hit pretty hard as is.

But hey, let's get more ambitious here... What if all space marines above scouts had two wounds? With three on centurions and terminators? What if the balance of what an army is in 40k was less about how a given unit is different from a space marine and instead was about how many wounds you get on the table relative to points?

Grimgold wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

Please no :\

All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .

In the world of D6 randomizers there are only two ways to make things tougher, add wounds or add layers of defenses. We've had five editions of adding layers of defenses, and that has lead to D weapons, invis, 3+ invuls, rerollable saves, shields that stop D weapons, FNP/RP, Grav weapons, stomp, etc literally all of the problems with the current balance scheme can be laid at the feet of that one very poor design decision. Game balance has drunkenly swayed between "Need to make this tougher" and "Oh crap made it too tough need to add a way to kill it" for years now. and with the Tau'anar we are entering the endgame for D-Weapons. One save, multiple wounds, keep the game running at full steam.

Very well said Grimgold. You brought up some good points. Would love to see a counter to this.

Brutus_Apex wrote:

Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.

What did you say before? Who was talking about LotR? Again, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even most AoS players don't like the floating initiative system.

Wrong. hahahah

If you read what I said before the quote when someone complained about the "floating initiative" just like you and said it was no good and can never work, I said Lord of the Rings does a beautiful job in how it's handled. You said a floating initiative system can never work with Tau and Eldar and I said it can in what I wrote above comment. I didn't think I would have to repeat myself again in the same post. That is why I said "what I wrote before".

What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?

In my experience you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay for quality.

Fair enough. Good point.

The internet told them they should hate something, so they hate it.

Or maybe we have played the game, and didn't like it because of how shallow the rules are.

Or how about people who have played the game and love it? How are they wrong? You have tried it and didn't like it. Great. But why bash something that people do like?

About the shallow part, I find the 40K rules more shallow than Age of Sigmar rules. That doesn't make me any more wrong that what you says make you right.

 Asmodai wrote:
Degrading Vehicle/MC Rules

It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.

Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.

THIS in so many ways. I just came to this realization earlier this week and came to this thread to post exactly this.

There are a lot of people who are saying 40k can learn nothing from it. I couldn't disagree more. There are a lot of things. Some positive and some negative.

1. The example above. Great idea.
2. Do NOT advance the storyline to the point of wiping out everything that came before.
3. Focus on multiple ways to play the game (as the Generals Handbook does)
4. Reducing effectiveness (or sometimes even increasing it in special cases) of monstrous creatures as they take wounds.
5. The Warscroll (Data Slate in 40k?) system for disseminating unit rules.
6. The Psychic Phase. Simplify it a bit and add one-off power types to specific Warscrolls.

Just off the top of my head there are three very solid things they can take away from AOS.

Honestly, people who have crapped all over "AoS is just 4 pages of rules!? Stupid." Don't seem to understand that as the game has expanded the rules and strategies become incredibly deep and complex based on Warscroll specific units.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.

What did you say before? Who was talking about LotR? Again, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even most AoS players don't like the floating initiative system.

Wrong. hahahah

In LOTR only 1/3rd of your army can have bows IIRC. He kinda left that key piece of info out there...

Jbz` wrote:

So long as it came with the lots more wounds of monstrous creatures that AOS has so that the things that kill them are the big heavy duty weapons rather than a lucky round of bolter fire
(I've lost a disturbing amount of monsters to a round of bolters..)

That's actually one of the things I find charming about AoS, nothing is safe, even your dragon can get dropped like a stone if sufficient force is applied. It makes the game feel dangerous as opposed to the shin kicking contest many 40k battles tend to become. With that said I think the game has more depth when you have target profiles and roles, eg devastators as monster hunters and Tac marines as an anti-infantry force. I think Strength and toughness reflect that pretty well, tac marines are three times more effective shooting at T4 as opposed to T6. Devastators will have high str weapons that inflict multiple wounds per hit, which will be completely wasted on single wound mid toughness targets like tac marines but will be very effective against vehicles and MCs with high toughness and multiple wounds.

Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)

Probably because of the overreaction from the fact that 40k's Summoning is a bit out of control.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rending I'd love to see back (as in, negatives to armour), but with the plethora of weapons in 40k, I think it'd quickly become very, very messy to keep track of what has what etc.

Wouldn't it be the same as keeping track of armor saves and AP values just like is done now?

Wayniac wrote:
Rend I think would be really good, since there's also the way some things can ignore rend of certain amounts; so vehicles and monstrous creatures could, for instance, ignore Rend of up to -2 or something and be really nasty.

I remember WHFB did the same thing by giving really heavily armored characters saves better than 2+, but armor save rolls of 1 always failed. So a model with a 1+ armor save still needed a 2+, but was unaffected by a Rend of -1.

I guess just saying that the particular unit ignores Rend of up to -2 is more straightforward. The only reason for using the 1+ or 0+ saves method would be if they also adopted the AoS rule of cover improving a units armor save rather than providing its own separate armor save.